AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER:
The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1991 and later he was appointed by transfer as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector in 1997. While so, the 2nd and 3rd respondents initiated departmental action against the petitioner. When the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the same was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.20 of 2017. Later, a charge memo was issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 19.06.2013 for the alleged disproportionate assets pertaining to the year 2009.
The Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department exercising powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, read with Rule 9 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, have re-assigned the case to Sri J.Sathyanarayana, IPS (Retd.) Member as inquiring authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, who is formerly Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, IML Depot, Rajahmundry (retired on 30.06.2021) for the allegations of acquisition of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his legal income and with a direction to complete the inquiry expeditiously and submit the inquiry report to the Government for taking further action in the matter. The said Inquiry Officer issued a notice on 22.02.2022 to the petitioner. Subsequent office has not concluded the enquiry as per the notice dated 22.02.2022. Now the present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2009 on the ground that keeping the said proceedings without concluding the disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and prayed to direct the respondents to consider the promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the interest of justice.
The relief prayed by the writ petitioner cannot be granted, as the petitioner was retired from service. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, without adverting to the merits of the case. Moreover, the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 outlines that the enquiry should be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months in any serious offence.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner herein deemed to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.